Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/9/2025 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.mei.2025 om 03:35 schreef olcott:

On 5/8/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/8/25 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2025 6:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2025 6:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 08/05/2025 23:50, olcott wrote:

[...]

If you are a competent C programmer

Keith Thompson is a highly-respected and very competent C
programmer.

>
*Then he is just who I need*

>
No, what you need is someone who is an expert in mathematical logic
(I am not) who can explain to you, in terms you can understand and
accept, where you've gone wrong.  Some expertise in C could also
be helpful.
>

>
The key gap in my proof is that none of the comp.sci
people seems to have a slight clue about simple C
programming.

>
No, the problem is you don't.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*THIS IS THE C PART THAT NO ONE HERE UNDERSTANDS*
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.

>
And claiming the behavior of a program that isn;t the behavior of that program is just a lie.
>

>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.
>

  No need to repeat vacuous statements. It does not matter how many times you multiply 0, it will remains 0.
DDD contains an HHH that aborts,

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.

so a correct simulation will take that into account and reach the 'return'. HHH does not do such a correct simulation, which makes your statements vacuous.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer